Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Migration Policy Institute is providing what it describes as a side-by-side comparison of the provisions of the 2006, 2007 and 2013 U.S. Senate immigration reform proposals. I'm finding the comparisons and references to be an interesting.

Migration Policy Institute is providing what it describes as a side-by-side comparison of the provisions of the 2006, 2007 and 2013 U.S. Senate immigration reform proposals. I'm finding the comparisons and references to be an interesting.

If one totally opposes allowing any illegals to remain here why would they have a need to read it? We already know that isn't what the bill is about.

I've brought up one possible change, that the Diversity Visa Program would end. It does bring a point-based system based on skills and education, and has more points awarded when an immigrant comes from a country having less immigration to the United States. But if you think that is worse than the current system (with your objections to over 80% of all current legal immigrants) that is up to you, I won't provide any more teasers.

I've brought up one possible change, that the Diversity Visa Program would end. It does bring a point-based system based on skills and education, and has more points awarded when an immigrant comes from a country having less immigration to the United States. But if you think that is worse than the current system (with your objections to over 80% of all current legal immigrants) that is up to you, I won't provide any more teasers.

Still the bottom line of this bill is to give millions of illegals amnesty aka CIR. So why would a small part of that bill influence me to support the rest of it? Your spinning my views again. I do not oppose 80% of all current legal immgrants. Even if 80% of legal immigrants were from one ethnic group I would only oppose a percentage of them for equality and diversities sake. I don't know why you keep bringing this up other than to keep needling me over and over when I have explained my position on diversity. Do you enjoy doing that? The laws IMO need to change within the different catagories for legal immigration to reflect that. You don't agree with me so, so be it. Quit throwing it in my face over and over.

Still the bottom line of this bill is to give millions of illegals amnesty aka CIR. So why would a small part of that bill influence me to support the rest of it? Your spinning my views again. I do not oppose 80% of all current legal immgrants. Even if 80% of legal immigrants were from one ethnic group I would only oppose a percentage of them for equality and diversities sake. I don't know why you keep bringing this up other than to keep needling me over and over when I have explained my position on diversity. Do you enjoy doing that? The laws IMO need to change within the different catagories for legal immigration to reflect that. You don't agree with me so, so be it. Quit throwing it in my face over and over.

You've stated that marriage to a U.S. citizen (25% of all legal immigrants) should not be a qualifier to immigrate. Opposing a spouse for a U.S. citizen means excluding the spouses of Legal Permanent Residents too. If you can't immigrate a spouse, how could immigration of minor children by that spouse be allowed? Other relatives such as parents (which you have opposed for age and care) and siblings would also naturally be excluded under that rationale.

That's a total of over 80%. But if we are back at excluding potential immigrants by ethnicity (which you still haven't explained), it seems you would approve the portion of that 80% that aren't Hispanic. You didn't say "skills", which family-based immigration doesn't measure anyway. I'm not going to use a strawman argument in turn against you, but you've never explained in depth what changes you do want.

Just your statements on "quotas" and "favoritism" show that understanding to be flawed...

We give them amnesty and promise to tighten the border.
Life goes on and illegals continue to come here.
In another 10-20 years they'll hit a critical mass and we'll give amnesty to the next batch of illegals with promises to secure the border.

You've stated that marriage to a U.S. citizen (25% of all legal immigrants) should not be a qualifier to immigrate. Opposing a spouse for a U.S. citizen means excluding the spouses of Legal Permanent Residents too. If you can't immigrate a spouse, how could immigration of minor children by that spouse be allowed? Other relatives such as parents (which you have opposed for age and care) and siblings would also naturally be excluded under that rationale.

That's a total of over 80%. But if we are back at excluding potential immigrants by ethnicity (which you still haven't explained), it seems you would approve the portion of that 80% that aren't Hispanic. You didn't say "skills", which family-based immigration doesn't measure anyway. I'm not going to use a strawman argument in turn against you, but you've never explained in depth what changes you do want.

Just your statements on "quotas" and "favoritism" show that understanding to be flawed...

No, what I am saying is that just being married to a U.S. citizen shouldn't be a priority qualifer to migrate here. It encourages scam marriages also. All this family chain migration needs to be curbed also, IMO. If one ethnic group is coming here by far in the largest numbers just because of marriage or other family connections then perhaps that ethnic group or nationality should have fewer quotas in the other catagories to migrate here. I don't care if you think my reasoning is flawed.

You certainly have refused to answer simple questions in here many times that myself and others have asked you yet you keep pounding away at me and demanding more in depth explanations from me post after post and even when I ask you to drop it you never stop. You take every opportunity to stick the needle in me about my views on this subject topic after topic. Isn't that trolling? We are supposed to be discussiing illegal immgration in here anyway not legal immigration.

No, what I am saying is that just being married to a U.S. citizen shouldn't be a priority qualifer to migrate here. It encourages scam marriages also. All this family chain migration needs to be curbed also, IMO. If one ethnic group is coming here by far in the largest numbers just because of marriage or other family connections then perhaps that ethnic group or nationality should have fewer quotas in the other catagories to migrate here. I don't care if you think my reasoning is flawed...

Explain what you think "quotas in other categories" means in this instance. Whom does it cover? How would you adjust immigration by ethnicity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldglory

...You certainly have refused to answer simple questions in here many times that myself and others have asked you yet you keep pounding away at me and demanding more in depth explanations from me post after post and even when I ask you to drop it you never stop. You take every opportunity to stick the needle in me about my views on this subject topic after topic. Isn't that trolling? We are supposed to be discussiing illegal immgration in here anyway not legal immigration.

Because you never provide any substance to your plans. One can complain about the status quo, but if you can't explain an alternative in enough detail to prove it will work, what is the point? It just sounds like you want to end or constrain only Hispanic immigration, and I want to know why.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.